JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Clive Hamilton preaches to the believers: tells them to “cringe” at deniers

The ABC keeps giving us more reasons to say “Privatize the national broadcaster”. Such is the quality of the insights on offer.

Clive Hamilton, ethics professor and former Greens candidate, uses most of the alarmist toolbox on the ABC Drum --the name-calling, hypocrisy, and argumentum ad auctoritatem. He still can’t tell the difference between science and religion, he thinks science works like a church, with decrees issued from the Mount. He talks of the mythical God known as “the science”. Clive has read the leak of the latest commandment from on high, and it says “95%”! There is gnashing of teeth:

Further confirmation of the science will certainly not persuade any climate science deniers. They are beyond persuasion, because the argument is only superficially about the science. It’s really about culture and ideology.

Strangely, he’s unwitting hit upon a truth. But it’s a projection of his headspace, run rife. Who denies the evidence showing climate models are broken. Whose argument is superficial? Who doesn’t even know what science is? Yes, really this is about culture and ideology. His. And it’s a dark ideology; read on.

What Clive wants more than anything is to monsterize anyone who questions his faith. His scorn for those who don’t wholeheartedly bow to the God of Alarm is complete, and his fantasy wish is to make that hatred a stronger part of our culture.

This is what it’s all about — the nub:

I have been in rooms where even sophisticated people who would cringe at being associated with climate deniers look for comfortable ways out. They pull back from what the science requires because the policy task looks too hard, oblivious to the fact that it now looks harder because others before them have reacted with the same timidity.

He hopes people will cringe rather than listen to deniers. (God forbid that citizens might have a polite discussion, or there be an actual debate like in a courtroom or a parliament.) Hamilton is delivering his sermon to the poor sods who read the ABC Drum. He’s reminding them that skeptics are the lepers of our community, and if any of the faithful should make the mistake of asking whether a foreign government committee might be less than 100% correct (in being 95% scared), they shall be shunned from the Citadel of Ultimo.

Sadly for him, the vicious bullying campaign is past the useby date, people are awake to it, and the more he does it, the sillier it looks. The ABC and to some extent, Hamilton, live off the largess of Australian taxpayers, and yet something like 70% of them don’t want the government spending any more of their money on “environmental issues.”

The Science has spoken:

The point is that politicians instinctively know all of this. They know that most Australians accept the science and are at times worried about climate change. They want their governments to ‘do something’ and make the problem go away.

He “knows” that the citizens are shallow people, feeling guilty and looking for a cheap way out. No wonder the Greens don’t like  mainstream Australians. What else can we infer from this:

Yet our political leaders also know, from street talk, focus groups and hard political experience, that Australians want symbolic actions only, actions that will make them feel better about themselves but not require anything of them. When political leaders get it wrong, and take what voters tell pollsters at face value, they find themselves in hot water.

By this view, the world is going to hell in a handbasket, Australians know it, but are too selfish and stupid to act. So little respect is shown for the unwashed masses views there’s an element of class warfare. Those who drink from Clive’s bowl find reasons to resent most Australians, but gain no understanding. Is this what the ABC is for?

There’s no acknowledgment in Clive’s “Good or Evil” world that the unwashed masses may have a more complex view entirely -  perhaps Australians are aware of which answer they are supposed to give on surveys, but they also know the Green policies to change the weather are pointless, so they tick the boxes that say: “Yes I believe” but no, “Don’t waste the money”. Hamilton spends the next seven paragraphs trying to explain the current dismal state and paroxysms of Australian politics. As far as he can see, there is only one explanation. “The Science” (kneel you fool) is correct and all the politicians are being dumped because they can’t get the impossible “nuances right”. (He doesn’t actually say what particular “nuance” politicians can use to hold back the tide without imposing extra costs. Details!)

I humbly suggest there is another explanation Clive, and it’ll knock your socks off. Perhaps the political carnage is occurring because skeptics are right? Reality bites eh? How about this: A group of self-serving shepherds and their obedient sheep thought they could change the weather, and they bullied, badgered, cajoled and insisted everyone else pay for it. Despite the campaign to make skeptics “cringeworthy”, increasingly the public saw through it, recognized the unscientific nature of this non-debate, and the sheep left the flock.

My questions for Clive,  Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University: How is it ethical to use public funds to try to shut down debate with name-calling and ill-informed slurs about half the population? Don’t you feel any obligation to do some research to support your claims about the group you call “Deniers”. Is it ethical to ignore and denigrate half the population for their views, especially when you cannot point to actual evidence (data, not government authorities) that they are wrong? What happens if the temperature drops significantly?

Now, back to that “privatization”. It could help Tony Abbott balance the budget (should he become PM). That’s a billion dollars in annual costs avoided, and perhaps Fairfax will buy it to reach the audience they lost.

I can also suggest some savings in the ARC budget too…

H/t John Coochey

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (88 votes cast)
Clive Hamilton preaches to the believers: tells them to "cringe" at deniers, 9.2 out of 10 based on 88 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/memmjt8

204 comments to Clive Hamilton preaches to the believers: tells them to “cringe” at deniers

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    The new Government should introduce evidence based de-funding of the ABC.
    Each time they publish such emotive nonsense with no basis in objective reality their funding should be progressively cut.


    Report this

    492

    • #
      Joe V.

      Wouldn’t that need someone to judge each transmissions ? An ‘Objectivity’ Commissioner if you like.
      (and before the idle chatterers start bleating, free & balanced reporting already doesn’t apply to a lot of the ABC. Its funding ensures its use as organ of Government, so at least ensure it is being used effectively).


      Report this

      140

    • #
      Manfred

      Evidence based broadcasting. Interesting thought. It’d be very dull. We’d be saddled with a blank screen much of the time, and particularly when it came to the garbage spouted by “I have been in rooms…” Hamilton. Doubtless, there are rooms in which he might find it a challenge to remain corporeal.

      And while I think of it, since when does a Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University possess the credentials to comment upon the sacred art of climate science? Aren’t we always reminded that to be a true climate commentator one needs to be a card carrying member of The Cadre, a published atmospheric scientist, or at a pinch, a modeler?


      Report this

      251

      • #

        No, it only has to be a published atmospheric scientist if it’s a skeptic. I have been told that you don’t have to be a scientist to publish in peer-reviewed journals if bring up such qualifications. Warmists will accept a paper from anyone who agrees with their position. If you object to the qualifications, they scream “peer-reviewed”. As long as they own the journals, they then completely control the science. Even if a skeptic once worked as a warmist, the skeptic is now, by definition, no longer a scientist. Because the science says the warmists are right and therefore if you disagree, you deny science. It’s one of the best examples of circular arguing out there__or may catch 22. If you believe, you are right because the science says so. If you disagree, you are not a scientist because you deny the science. The science is defined as being right.

        I have tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to get warmists to understand this. It’s nearly impossible–if cornered, so to speak, the person simply leaves the discussion. They cannot, will not, see how hypocritical their position is.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Brian G Valentine

          That is why another journal of natural science is needed, which will accept original contributions and reviewed with complete scrutiny (say 8 to 10 referees with every interest in identifying errors and if no errors uncovered or anything hidden then the contribution would have to be published).

          Unfortunately there are no organisations that would underwrite such a venture, since the organisation would lose public and private support for promoting things that offended some content with the “consensus.”

          The publication, “Energy and Environment,” provides opportunities for publication but the general quality is so low that it is practically meaningless


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Maverick

      The solution to the ABC and the AGW problem is the same – we need to get back to letting free markets deliver what there is a need for. That will fix the ABC because it gets eliminated and the private sector will provide some left wing networks if there is a need and some right wing networks if there is a need. Those networks can peddle their propaganda to their hearts content until everyone so many people stop watching it becomes unprofitable to continue.

      The same principle gets rid of subsidised windmills, solar panels and car industries.

      Obviously, its harder to execute than it sounds, but step one is to vote out the socialist/bordering on communist Greens, and the faux “we are in it for the worker” Armani wearing suit socialists Labor.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Skeptic4557

      Hi Jo, I am having trouble logging in. It keeps saying my username and password is incorrect but later lets me in. You may wish to check.
      I recall last week a suggestion was made that a register of Failed Predictions be created. You indicated support for the idea. Has there been any progress?
      —Should be fixed now.
      Yes, I’m still interested in failed predictions. I know a detailed one is on the way…- Jo


      Report this

      10

      • #
        rockape

        I’m having the same problem with logging in.


        Fixed. I have to manually whitelist some people with our newer security. – Jo


        Report this

        00

        • #

          I think I know what the problem is. Anyone else having trouble? Please say so. I’ll fix it.
          Jo


          Report this

          00

        • #
          blackadderthe4th

          ‘Anyone else having trouble?’ yes! Some of my posts disappear into cyberspace never to be seen again. And some are even edited to dilute the point I’m addressing! Just can’t understand how it happens. Please look into this serious problem.

          regards


          Report this

          12

          • #
            michael hart

            From what I’ve read, I doubt many here would want to spend much time editing your posts. Joanne affords you a large degree of latitude, as she does to other critics who are free to post on this blog.

            If you are alleging undue censorship, I suggest you also post them in another place so that we can all judge them.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Hi blackadderthe4th,

            Help me lose my “Ex” – I just want to be a plain old Warmist again.

            Could you please provide,

            [A] From the scientific literature, papers that provide data from calibrated instruments that show conclusively that

            [1] Water vapour is a net positive feedback in the climate system due to increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.

            [2] The recorded increase in CO2 concentrations is primarily due (> 50%) to Human activities and not caused by natural variations, and

            [3] That the Computer Models used in Climate Science are correctly predicting the recorded temperature (From Satellites, RSS, Aqua, and Radiosondes) of the Atmosphere since 1995 to 2013.

            and

            [B] From the scientific literature, a paper that states the quantified, measurable, falsification criteria that enables the hypothesis of Man Made Global Warming to be tested against measurable predicted events, such that if it fails those tests (predicted events fail to occur) it would be refuted in full. I.e. That the hypothesis of AGW is indeed falsifiable science and not pseudoscience.

            Yours sincerely – and hoping to give up my “Ex”.

            ExWarmist


            Report this

            30

    • #
      Jon

      “A group of self-serving shepherds and their obedient sheep thought they could change the weather, and they bullied, badgered, cajoled and insisted everyone else pay for it. Despite the campaign to make skeptics “cringeworthy”, increasingly the public saw through it, recognized the unscientific nature of this non-debate, and the sheep left the flock.”

      I think the real aim is more about changing the world and less about changing the weather. They where so……. Close…Global Government…… but then reality, Climategate and Copenhagen 2009 and a dead Kyoto happened. They haven’t given up this campaign, because it is the only thing they have at the table at the moment?


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    We have a million Clives here in the US – most of them University Professors or bureaucrats who are remunerated rather handsomely for their contributions of sneering at the unwashed masses who pay them. It makes me sick.


    Report this

    522

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      The cancer is spread thoughout the developed West. Pascal Bruckner, in his book, “The Tyranny of Guilt”, deals very well with the philosophy behind the subject.


      Report this

      280

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      Isn’t it their mission , these Hamiltons, to save these great unwashed from themselves though ?
      It’s only and always for their own good.


      Report this

      120

      • #
        Colin Henderson

        These enviorn-mentalist Ayatollahs creep me out. Their noble cause entitlement belief that they and only they deserve the unchallenged ability to stifle debate is unbelievable. In another life they would be clamouring to join the HItler youth movement.


        Report this

        160

        • #
          Jon

          “These enviorn-mentalist Ayatollahs creep me out. Their noble cause entitlement belief that they and only they deserve the unchallenged ability to stifle debate is unbelievable. In another life they would be clamouring to join the HItler youth movement.”

          It’s more like hearing a radical priest from the old days?


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Ian

      Brian, I’m a bit annoyed that you’ve stolen my thunder. Seriously though, having been a university academic for more years than I care to remember, here in Australia academics in secure well paid positions, which, despite what the public is told, are not at all arduous (think 24 weeks per year student contact) are all for the Greens’ ideas. Just to prove a point those who run Skeptical Science are employed at a university. But do academics or bureaucrats earn a living from forestry or mining or any of the other activities they decry as environmental vandalism? They don’t. Can they afford the extra costs associated with the plans that governments impose to defeat an enemy that is not what it is claimed to be? Of course they can. Do they care that people all over the world need cheap energy to attain a standard of living most Australians would regard as very basic? They do not. Their mantras of the “Science is settled” “97% of scientists agree” “the heat is in the deep oceans” “extreme weather events are increasing” etc etc are sufficient to block out any thoughts of the five billion or so humans desperately trying to improve their lot. I despise the lot of them for their arrogance, small mindedness, self-righteousness, sanctimonious preachings and in the final analysis, their totally selfish behaviour, in trying to prevent so many others getting even a fraction of the lifestyle they believe is their right and proper due


      Report this

      340

      • #
        Brian G Valentine

        I regret that I have little response that is the least meaningful to them excepting to hurl profanity, and all the more stridently depending on the level of arrogance or condescension of their tone.

        Suggestions for alternative approaches would be welcome.


        Report this

        100

        • #

          We need to figure out how to stop feeding them. They can’t survive on their own. They are intellectually, philosophically, emotionally, and economically parasites who cannot survive without a host. We, the producers of goods and services necessary for life and thriving are the expected hosts. We have been passive with respect to them for far too long. Their greatest fear is that we will discover that they have nothing of value to offer for their keep and will tell them to go to the hell they are attempting to force us to inhabit.


          Report this

          120

          • #
            Ted O'Brien

            Absolutely. Cut off their money supply. Put them in the same “free market” that they (in Australia) enforce on farmers and see how they get on.


            Report this

            20

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Ian notes…

        of the five billion or so humans desperately trying to improve their lot.

        And they will improve their lot – whether Aussie Academics want it or not.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Debbie

      Yes indeed Brian,
      It’s called ‘biting the hand that feeds you’
      :-)


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      I am curious to know the reaction of a United States citizen to this article.
      Retired General Wesley Clark was a hero when the Serbs were committing atrocities in Kosovo. That in itself does not mean that he refrains from spinning a yarn, but he seems sincere in this interview, and if that is the case, it explains the ‘climate change’ farce quite well.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        I’m not sure what your point is here. The article seems to imply that wars are arranged in advance by government. That seems fairly tenuous. The oil argument has been a lie since day one–the Middle East never did have all the oil and every single president and world leader knew this, as did most people. I don’t understand why the lie just kept going. Other than we did not want to upset those living in the Middle East. We never did need oil from the Middle East–interestingly enough, I had a Canadian tell me in a blog exchange that the US would invade Canada if Canada cut off our oil. This is a very stupid statement after the US refused to build the rest of the Keystone Pipeline, but in some insane way it made sense to the guy making the comment. Oil has always been political and blamed for absolutely everything.

        In the cases of Syria, if we can indeed show they are using chemical weapons, the question becomes: Do we discard the provisions of the Geneva Convention prohibiting chemical weapons, or do we intervene. International law is being broken if chemical weapons are used. Oil has nothing to do with this. I have objection to our revisiting the Geneva Convention and prohibition against chemical weapons. If we want to keep that provision, we are going to have to take action and it will have to be more than the US.

        Other than for violation of an international treaty, there is no reason to suddenly intervene in Syria. Perhaps that is why the polls show what they do. I do wonder if the pollsters had asked if the international community should enforce the Geneva Convention or scrap it, if the percentages would have been different.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          Thanks for that Sheri. I value your opinion.
          I wasn’t attempting to make a point. This morning I ran across an article by an American who I consider a straight shooter, Mish Shedlock, and an interview with General Wesley Clark (ret) that seems to mesh with the concept that the government of the USA is in fact not two bodies of elected representatives, but a cabal of some description which steers events in the direction of the New World Order.
          You satisfied my curiosity, in that at least one intelligent, well-informed American does not believe it isw “all about oil”. That is similar to a remark I made prior to Desert Storm in that “there must be more to it than oil, because the cost of the operation and the subsequent mess will be far more than the value of the oil”.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Rod, I’ll also offer that I agree with your observations. We in the US have plenty of oil and could tell the rest to f-off for long enough that the rest would set themselves on fire. It is always about money and international politics. Peacekeeping is a noble endeavor but as you’ve probably observed “peace” is often in the eye of the loser.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    George Daddis

    “Australians want symbolic actions only, actions that will make them feel better about themselves but not require anything of them.”

    Just like in the US; drive a Prius and use corkscrew light bulbs (between vacation trips around the world) and your grandchildren will be safe.
    Oh, wait; those are the Greens.


    Report this

    160

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Laying around in a dusty old corner of the ABC web site is a rather interesting article on Science by one Peter Macinnes. He writes that in his experience there seem to be seven types of “Science” in practice:

    Type 1 science: orthodox science or sensu stricto science
    Some people regard this as the only form of science. Every observation is predictable and repeatable. All the variables can be completely controlled.

    Type 2 science: interpretations placed on observations
    Where there are two competing theories .. we often find competing and conflicting interpretations offered by competing schools of thought. So while we describe Type 2 events in scientific language, our results are less certainly replicable, at best. Soft science is still governed by scientific rules. We have a theoretical framework in which we explore causes and effects, and we apply Ockham’s Razor, choosing the simplest available explanation.

    Type 3 science: fraud
    In a sense fraud is not science at all. Fraud happens when a scientist takes a short-cut and concocts a few results that he (in just about all the known cases it has been a “he”), makes up a few results would have been found, if only things had gone right, if only the techniques were good enough, if only the material had been a little better than it was.

    Type 4 science: fiddling science
    Although they may not admit it many scientists spend most of their lives engaged in fancy sorts of fiddling. They twiddle the knobs a bit, they explore the situation in various ways, sometimes systematically and sometimes almost at random. Fiddling still involves sticking to the rules of science, applying the rules in slightly quirky ways perhaps, but still within the framework.

    Type 5 science: speculation
    All good scientists speculate at times, and progress would be impossible if they did not do so. .. They ask whether this fact is really all that factual. Then, still working within the rules of science, they test it, under different conditions.

    Type 6 science: Polemic
    Polemic often involves saying “Blow the facts, I want it this way, and I’ll biff you if you don’t agree”. There are some fairly strong personalities around the scientific world and polemic is more common than many people realise or admit. Polemic frequently pays little regard to the facts and so it is only marginally scientific, but the people who engage in this sort of argument still call themselves scientists, and at least they argue about scientific facts.

    Type 7 science: Pseudo-science
    The proponents of pseudo-science usually take delight in pointing out that their system “transcends” the rules of science, obeys some “higher laws”. They do not speculate on this, they assert it. They abhor hypotheses even harder than Nature used to abhor vacuums.

    That’s just my brief paraphrasing but his whole article is an interesting read.
    The article dates from 1998, back when global warming was still in boost phase as a public issue.
    Would Clive and his ilk at the ABC recognise when Macinnes’ science types 2 through 7 are being perpetrated under the guise of being Type 1? Do they even try?

    The ABC has several sciencey-sounding shows with titles such as “Catalyst”, “Ockham’s Razor”, “The Naked Scientist”, “Inside Science”, “Can We Believe The Science“, and of course “The Science Show”. Are they serious about science or do they just pay it lip service? Over a decade of propaganda and fear mongering, and the number of times the naturalist case has been given a fair hearing could be counted on one hand. No, these people want the brand name of Science, but they don’t care for the methods of science.

    Michael Crichton got it right in 2003 (I know it’s a crowd favourite here):

    As the twentieth century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part, because of the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact.

    I’m sure regular readers can immediately think of plenty of global warming “science” examples of Types 2 through 7, but still nobody can show the Type 1 science data that supports the dangerous global warming scenario. Crichton’s warning still applies.


    Report this

    410

    • #
      Tim

      Maybe there’s another category…

      Type 7 Science: Those who willingly become part of a criminal industry that has turned to abuse and threats in the absence of any real science that would prove their assertions to be accurate.

      The emergence of this cabal of paid mercenaries includes blatant scientific fraud, lying to governments, the media and populaces. They will do anything to keep the money rolling in. It makes no difference what science they have to falsify, or who has to be threatened or paid into silence. They will stop at nothing.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    … is it ethical to use public funds to try to shut down debate with name-calling and ill-informed slurs about [a proportion of] the population? … Is it ethical to ignore and denigrate [that proportion of] the population for their views, especially when you cannot point to actual evidence (data, not government authorities) that they are wrong?

    At the risk of invoking Godwin’s Law, these questions could equally have been asked of academics in Germany in the 1930′s.

    But of course, kids don’t learn history anymore. There are too many parallels to be comfortable. It is better that they focus on media studies instead — it keeps them more compliant.


    Report this

    220

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    The 2 sentences after -The Science has spoken:- and beginning “The point is . . .”

    . . . are priceless;

    “politicians instinctively know”
    “Australians accept the science”
    “at times worried”
    “make the problem go away”

    It is all odd and funny but the phrase “at times worried” is a real howler. I wonder if there is a particular time set aside to worry about things, say from 11:03:15 to 11:03:25? Or maybe the time is event driven, say for a minute or so while watching scary pictures of brush fires? Maybe Clive can expand on this some – one wouldn’t want to worry about something at the wrong time!


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Peter Miller

    The ABC and BBC are the same; control of the content of their once renowned science programs hijacked by left wing, dictatorial green activists. I cannot think of one thing which supports alarmist claims on imminent Thermageddon and CAGW:

    1. The circa 0.7 degrees C rise in global temperature over the past century is no more than yet another natural climate cycle, the same as has happened hundreds of thousands of times before in the geological record.

    2. The geological record always shows that changes in CO2 levels always follow changes in global temperature, not vice versa.

    3. The polar bears are doing great.

    4. There is no global increase in extreme weather events, in many instances they are declining.

    5. Global temperature has been static for over 16 years.

    6. The Arctic ice may not be doing so well, but this is offset by what is happening in the Antarctic.

    7. The glaciers (not all of them) started retreating over 150 years ago – if they are still retreating today, then it is just part of a natural climate warming cycle which began back then, thankfully releasing us from the grips of the Little Ice Age.

    8. Climate Change is the natural state of things, so there is nothing to be scared about – trying to fix climate is totally impossible, so why even think about trying?

    9. Climate computer models are proven junk, as they have to have pre-determined scary results and it is simply impossible to model something as chaotic and complex as the world’s climate.

    10. Sea levels continue to creep upwards at the rate as they have for the past century – the heat supposedly hiding in the deep ocean is simply the figment of some sad individual’s imagination.

    Time and time again we see clear and obvious fraudulent interpretations and data manipulation in the climate science community, why?

    It is the only way the alarmist elite can ‘prove’ their case. The Climate Change Industry is now challenging Organised Crime as the most lucrative and unethical business in which to be a Team member, acapo, jefe or patron – both have similar methodologies of funding, in the old days they used to be called protection rackets.

    Clive Hamilton sounds like a classic ecoloon, unable and unwilling to see that his cause is supported only by bad science and the huge financial teats made available to him and his ilk by gullible and/or duplicitous politicians.


    Report this

    311

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Sea levels continue to creep upwards at the rate as they have for the past century

      Living, as I do, in the midsts of active volcanic fault systems, it becomes very clear that the earth’s surface is far from stable, and that dry land can, and does, move up and down relative to sea level.

      It is somewhat less obvious to the lay person, that volcanic faults extend a long way below the sea, but they do. Tsunami any one? In fact, there is a “consensus” amongst volcanologists, that the earth’s surface is probably covered in volcanic fault lines, the vast majority of which are unknown.

      The earth’s mantle is constantly moving around, as the hot core cools and molten lava seeps through the crust. It does this in time scales measured in millennia and centuries, but it is moving. I just get to experience the side effects of this, where I live.

      So when climate scientists claim that sea levels are rising due to variations in the constituent gasses in the atmosphere, my question is: “Rising relative to what?”. Are the seas rising, or is the land falling?

      Or is the apparent rise just due to increased erosion in one place, or lack of erosion in another?

      When faced with relativistic words, such as “increasing” or “moving”, it is always helpful to ask, “Relative to what?”


      Report this

      140

      • #
        AndyG55

        Rereke.

        About 2/3 of the Earth’s surface is under the oceans. Even slight bulging anywhere in any of the oceans’ floor would cause the sea levels to rise.

        And there is absolutely no way we would know without constant and very precise mapping of the whole of the world’s ocean floor. (Which we don’t got)

        Like everything on Earth, its always changing…. mostly slowly, thank goodness.


        Report this

        100

        • #
          Ted O'Brien

          Andy, I think your bulges would be only significant where there have been major quakes. And in places like Rereke’s “shaky isles”. For your scenario total volumes are constant.

          A change in the breeze can alter sea levels measurably at multiple locations. Therefore only long term physical records over many widely spread locations can be meaningful on a “global sea level” basis. Remember that there are no tidal gauges in the oceans.

          However, they tell us that the satellites can do remarkable things, so it seems feasible that they can monitor “the sea level” on a short term basis.


          Report this

          10

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        Somewhere, the other day, I read that ‘sea level’ is a concept, rather than a ‘measurement’. I thought ‘that is so true’. Not far from where I live, the convicts chiseled the tide marks into the rocks on ‘The Isle of the Dead’ at Port Arthur. Given that there are high tides, low tides, and king tides, they are still right were they were, relative to the level of the sea, in 1810.


        Report this

        140

        • #
          Peter C

          The late John Daly wrote a lot about the Isle of the Dead tode mark. It is a great read.
          http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm

          The tide mark was also featured on the ABC Catalyst program “Taking our Temperature”,
          Unfortunately Dr John Hunter, oceanographer from Antarctic Climate Systems, who was featured on that segment is in the same choir as Clive Hamilton. John Daly was on to him however.


          Report this

          60

          • #
            Maverick

            Pure trivia, but John was my Year 12 economics teacher in 1988. He was instrumental in making sure I had a career in business and encouraged my skeptical side. Ironically, I am editing my daughter’s Year 11 economics assignment as I go back and fort from Jo’s blog.


            Report this

            20

      • #
        Niff

        Rereke,
        Indeed I use the phrase “…compared to what?” regularly. Apart from being howling funny quite often, it usually causes jaws to drop, and the absence of any concept of relativity to shine through. Especially for your typical green ecoloon.


        Report this

        30

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    I wonder if there is a particular time set aside …

    I don’t really see what is wrong with that. I set 20 minutes aside, usually from 10.15 in the evening, for spontaneity.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    I wonder if “Michael the Realist” who displays his gullibility and ignorance far too often here, is really Clive Hamilton moon lighting?


    Report this

    80

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      To be fair to Michael, who cant reply as he’s moderated at the moment, he at least tries if superficially to appear scientific, whereas Hamilton doesn’t seem to think he has to.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        o 2

        Come on let Michael play he makes me laugh


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Backslider

        To be fair to Michael, who cant reply as he’s moderated at the moment

        Dang! I missed that as I have been away for a week… do tell?


        Report this

        10

      • #
        MemoryVault

        .
        Michael can come back and play any time he supplies Jo with a valid email address.
        That fact he remains MIA suggests that, to date, he has failed to do so.

        Our host takes a dim view of people who hide behind fake addresses, and subsequently don’t answer emails.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          … a dim view of people who hide behind fake addresses

          Yes, I think she has figured out that Michael is no only fake, … but a Peter Gabriel fan :-o

          “Dressing up in costumes, playing silly games,
          Hiding out in tree-tops shouting out rude names ..”

          [Games Without Frontiers]


          Report this

          60

          • #

            Just an observation here.

            With Michael in moderation for his failure to supply a valid email contact, aren’t some of you wondering how it always seems to be those who infuriate us the most with that method of Thread bombing from that side of the debate seem to be those who don’t have a valid email, and by my guess count, that makes around 4 of them now.

            I guess that those who do follow that religion are a little protective of their identities. (One way of putting it I guess)

            Tony.


            Report this

            40

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          He’ll be back. He’s a glutton for punishment.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    pattoh

    Wouldn’t you just love to see blokes like this ( & David Jones & Tim Flannery) answering questions to Senate Estimates Committee if by good fortune Leon Ashby gets up!
    BRING IT ON!!!


    Report this

    50

  • #
    AndyG55

    Support Tim Blair…

    Everyone come over and say HI !!


    Report this

    61

  • #
    Bruce

    At an earlier time people like Clive would be singing the praises of Mr Stalin et al.

    Sadly for them that ideology now resides mostly in the dust heap of history.

    So what to do to to fulfill the inner needs?

    Why, make a name for yourself by spouting climate change.

    One can be the center of attraction without any intellectual heavy lifting, namely knowing something about the subject.

    As for the ABC, it has a perfect right to put on any clown it wishes.

    If we start telling the ABC what to air, we are on the slippery slope to censorship.

    Watching is not compulsory.

    Whether the ABC should exist as a taxpayer-funded organization is another question.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      While it does though, how to get it showing what tax payers want to watch, rather than the holders of the purse strings.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      ian hilliar

      You are quite right about Clive Hamilton. As a self described “Public Intellectual”, he has no understanding of how science works. None. None at all. He has spent the last 15 years painting himself into a corner, and to admit that he could have been wrong, for all this time, would require a lot more intestinal fortitude than he possesses. I subscribed to The Monthly for a year after The Bulletin folded, and forced myself to read Clive and his friends from cover to cover. I did get to read Kevin Rudd’s priceless essay on the End of Capitalism, and how it was up to socialists like him to save us from ourselves. Actually, Kevin and Clive have quite a lot in common .


      Report this

      80

  • #
    Yonniestone

    We actually refer to the ABC & SBS as “Communist TV” it started as a joke but has now stuck as a reference.
    They give us very little reason to drop it otherwise, this goes for any MSM that has supported this evil s*%t over the years.
    Gutless bastards hiding behind false idols and institutions, let’s see who cringes when the walls are down.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Peter C

    My questions for Clive,  Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University: How is it ethical to use public funds to try to shut down debate with name-calling and ill-informed slurs about half the population? Don’t you feel any obligation to do some research to support your claims about the group you call “Deniers”. Is it ethical to ignore and denigrate half the population for their views?

    I think Clive Hamilton has been reading the research of Dr Stephan Lewndowsky and John Cook!


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Otter

    ‘Krystalnacht’ is already taken. Any suggestions for naming the event these people will eventually stage, probably sooner than we think?


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Simon

    This is the same Clive Hamilton that wrote a profesionally unethucsl polemic about the play “The Heretic”, in which he called Christopher Monckton and 2 others “ratbags”. Official complaints were whitewashed (as usual).

    How he can hold his position as a supposedly’intelligent’ ‘professor’ is a mystery. He exhibits tbe traits of an angry and spoilt brat rather than a university ethics lecturer.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Rohan

    Actually just visited the drum and noticed another an article titled ‘Climate change looms as challenge for all parties’ by Antony Green.

    Apparently this climate change call challenge looms because the ALPBC’s compass poll says so. Also note the lack of comments. I guess Antony is not up to reader scrutiny.

    As a side note Jo, I don’t see the ability to respond to other posts on this thread. Something amiss on the backend of the site?


    Report this

    30

    • #

      Rohan, I’m not sure what you mean by “respond to other posts?” Are you missing the “reply” link? I can see it, but if you can’t then something is wrong.

      Jo


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Each thread only goes so deep (about five or six levels) then the “Reply” option, on the line that shows the date and time of what you are reading, goes away to stop it getting any deeper.

      You can always use the last comment to have a “Reply”, within the thread, and that will put your response at the end. I hope that makes sense.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Rohan

      Oh that’s embarrassing. I now see the reply link. I can’t even claim tiredness at 7.30am either.

      I’m red green colourblind. Yep that’s it.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Eddie Sharpe

        That’s OK Rohan, I rarely wake up before lunch time, regardless how early I get up.
        It must be that cool clothing , from the 70s was it ?


        Report this

        10

  • #
    clive hoskin

    For all Aussies,the way to get rid of this waste of our Taxpayer Dollars,is vote the FOOLS we have running this country out.Make sure when you vote,to put the GREEN LOONES and LABOUR last when voting.Do not leave it to the Party you vote for.Once we get rid of them,we should all let the NEW Gov’t know what we think of the ABC staff.Sack the LOT.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    TomRude

    Looks like ABC is the Australian equivalent to our Canadian CBC… and Suzuki!


    Report this

    40

  • #
    edwina

    An ongoing SBS tv series about science has been very good. One example described is the very efficient, respected 2nd century Roman physician who healed many gladiators. He also examined the organs of animals. One observation he made was that the liver had 3 lobes. This, and other of his observations, were handed down for about 1500 years. Despite students seeing for themselves that only 2 lobes existed in a liver they always agreed on the number 3. This was because no one wished to be thought radical. Consensus prevailed. Only the Enlightenment period finally established the truth. But examples of Piltdown Man being believed as the ‘missing link’ for 52 years last century shows even modern science can fall for fake evidence. Likewise, the believers are too ready to make final decisions too soon.


    Report this

    80

    • #
      Joe V.

      … the believers are too ready to make final decisions too soon.

      Most of what science ‘knows’ is but a working assumption until we change our minds.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Yeah imagine if over the last 10 years politicians made laws around food science, butter would have been banned about 6 times and declared a compulsory food item about 4 times with a bit of “your all going to die from eating it” Govt sponsored advertising thrown in for good measure.


        Report this

        70

  • #
    Bulldust

    ‘Climate deniers’ now? We don’t even bother with the word ‘change’ anymore?

    There us no climate! Taxpayer funded scientists made it up in computer models… does this sloppy use of language look even vaguely scientific to anyone? Let alone ethical … and he is supposed to be an academic in the field of ethics. Do as he says, I suppose… not as he does.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Neville

    The facts are that Clive and his mates don’t understand simple kindy maths.

    There is zip we can do about CAGW ( even if you’re a true believer) and even warmist prof Roger Jones has told Bolt that our efforts will only change the temp in 2100 by an unmeasurable 0.004C.
    This is a complete waste of trillions $ down the toilet if we were all as silly as Clive and his donkey mates.

    BTW if you are thinking of voting for the Climate Sceptics party in the senate,please look at the AEC site first.

    In Vic, NSW and Tassie they are preferencing Labor before the Coalition in the senate.
    I won’t be voting for them in Vic and I now view them as fraudsters and liars.


    Report this

    60

    • #

      Ouch! Only in WA and SA (and QLD) does a 1 for Climate Sceptics mean the Senate ticket ends (potentially) in Lib rather than Labor. Though the ticket may ultimately support an independent senator and the Lib/Lab order may be irrelevant. Voters ought to be aware. :-(

      True in NSW.Labor before Lib
      Tas preferences Labor before Lib
      WA Preferences Lib before Labor
      SA Preferences Lib before Labor
      VIC Preferences Labor before Lib
      QLD Preferences Lib before Labor* Corrected. Thanks Neville.
      NT Preferences N/A
      ACT Preferences N/A

      I have emailed ClimateSceptics Party to ask.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Neville

        Jo I think you’ll find that the Climate Sceptics have put Coalition before Labor in Qld.


        Report this

        20

        • #

          Thanks for picking that up Neville. Yes, we’ve put Libs ahead of Labor in QLD. So that works out to preferencing Labor ahead of the Libs in 3 states and the Libs ahead of Labor in 3 states. Whilst we gravitate to the Libs on most policy areas, on the issue that’s most important to us, i.e. the climate deceit, the Libs are equally as complicit as Labor in deceiving the public and hence worthy of an equal amount of respect.
          I am deeply offended by your “fraudsters and liars” comment. Whilst we had originally anticipated preferencing the Libs ahead of Labor, they have since had the gall to back the Kyoto 2 Protocol & apparently with some enthusiasm. Greg Hunt at his Sydney Institute speech of 30th May 2013 spoke approvingly of a ‘market mechanism’. What do you think he might be talking about Neville? We all know the sceptics’ case has become so much more compelling of late, so how much longer should we wait for the Libs to come clean on the climate issue? Should climate sceptics be satisfied with the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan because it might save a few dollars over Labor’s carbon tax/ETS? Or do we want to expose this scam once and for all? The Libs have been marketing themselves as the ‘No Carbon Tax’ party since 1st December 2009 & where has it got us? I remember that day well and I was happy for my opponent in the Bradfield by-election to adopt my 3 word slogan, but as it turned out, it apparently means something completely different to the Libs.
          By voting below the line you’re free to rectify any of our misdemeanors and mishaps and preference one set of fraudsters and liars over another, should you so desire. Please help support the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics Party with your first preference.


          Report this

          30

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Generally speaking the Greens and those who support them regard the Australian public as stupid and unworthy of their assistance. They (Greens) grudgingly bestow upon us the benefit of their superior morals and intellects only because they can do some environmental good (perceived) by going among the great unwashed masses of “ordinary people” Its almost like if Jesus was agoraphobic, he wouldn’t want anything to do with people, but now and then his calling would get the better of him, thats basically how Greens see having to deal with their countrymen.

    As I said recently, the conspiracy theory is no longer that “deniers” are proposing bizarre interrelationships between scientists to concoct evidence for AGW. The genuine conspiracy theory (if we accept that a majority of scientists believe AGW) is that politicians and leaders worldwide are engaged in a campaign to ignore and or discredit these scientists. Clive says it himself “The point is that politicians instinctively know all of this. They know that most Australians accept the science and are at times worried about climate change.” Well if that’s true then why arnt they acting on it. Why are they running away at 100 miles per hour? Why hasn’t Kevin said a single word about the environment in almost 2/3 of the campaign?

    Someone is in denial, thats for sure…. but I think its no longer us.


    Report this

    91

    • #
      Backslider

      They (Greens) grudgingly bestow upon us the benefit of their superior morals and intellects only because they can do some environmental good (perceived) by going among the great unwashed masses of “ordinary people”

      If you have ever been around “Greens” there is somewhat of a question as to who is actually unwashed….


      Report this

      30

  • #
    RoHa

    Great idea. Privatise the ABC so that Fairfax or Murdoch can use it steal our souls.
    Big Money is neither more honest nor fairer than Big Government, and they frequently work together to screw us.
    But if we keep them separate, just occasionally one might let something slip that the other would have covered up.


    Report this

    30

    • #

      But they are not separate. Big-government is now so big it has bought off big-business.

      The ABC should serve all Australians, otherwise tax dollars from all Australians should not be funding it.

      Murdoch wants to make profits, absolutely, but the market is telling us that the public don’t want to pay for papers that simply push big-government propaganda (RIP Fairfax). The media is supposed to keep a check on big-government, not help it.

      I think the most competitive profitable paper would print both sides of the story (and Murdoch largely does).


      Report this

      100

    • #

      There is no chance in hell of selling off the ABC. IT’S WORTH NOTHING.
      By the time the sandal wearing latte sipping luvvies redundancies are paid out, a potential buyer would be about a billion out of pocket.
      I’m not even confident the conglomerate could be sold for ONE DOLLAR.

      Slowly but surely strangling it with cuts to funding is the only way. One would need to stack the board with ultra conservatives, who would then direct the ABC management to cut programs (the Drum, various political shows etc) infested with pinko communists to fit within the new smaller budgets.


      Report this

      41

      • #
        MemoryVault

        There is no chance in hell of selling off the ABC. IT’S WORTH NOTHING.

        By the time the sandal wearing latte sipping luvvies redundancies are paid out, a potential buyer would be about a billion out of pocket.

        Too true, Baa, but maybe we could kill two birds with one stone.

        The ABC has a full-time staff of around 4,500, and a remuneration bill around $450 million a year.
        So we privatise it with a notional value of $1 billion, create one billion shares, and issue each ex-employee with 222,000 shares, (equivalent to two years earnings), in lieu of a redundancy package.

        The ex-employees now own the business, and can do with it what they like – which is pretty-much what they have been doing for at least the last decade or so anyway. For income, all they have to do is sell one million subscriptions a year, at $1,200.00 a piece, and they will be in front.

        Meanwhile, the rest of us taxpayers are a billion dollars plus a year better off.

        .
        What’s not to like?


        Report this

        110

        • #
          Manfred

          Outstanding solution MV!
          Have you phoned the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK with the idea? They could sure use the funds, and I’m certain you could put a value on The Beeb at what, say $10B? $100B?

          Just think, the Greenista movement with vanishing MSM mouthpieces, sails without wind, wheels without tyres, a warming thought indeed.


          Report this

          40

          • #
            MemoryVault

            Glad you liked it, Manfred.

            Calculating the value of the ABC was easy – I simply doubled the wages bill so the value (in nominal shares) was equal to two year’s equivalent in redundancy payments. It was merely fortuitous that the calculated amount happened to equal what the ABC costs the taxpayer each year.

            Calculating the value of the ABC was simple because it owns nothing of note, apart from some cameras, laptops, desks and coffee machines. Everything else – including all its transmission capacity – was flogged off long ago, and is now just rented or leased back. It also produces nothing of note. Here is a link to the last ABC production that got any major viewing – and that was on Youtube.

            .
            Things are a bit different at the BBC which, as I understand it, still actually OWNS transmission equipment, studios and stuff, and still actually produces some commercially viable programs (eg Dr Who). So calculating the notional value might be a bit more complicated.

            But still eminently desirable AND doable.


            Report this

            30

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              MV:
              The BBC gets money through a tax on TV’s.

              “You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it’s being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.
              It costs £145.50 for colour and £49.00 for a black and white TV Licence”.

              That’s an income from, say 20 million people, of over $5 billion. And that’s not counting all that income from those green schemes they’ve invested in.


              Report this

              10

              • #
                Jon

                BBC invested their pension fund in green schemes that’s main object is to make everybody poorer. This probably is the motivation for the leaning of BBC on climate?


                Report this

                10

  • #
    manalive

    First, they deny that climate change is occurring …

    Hey Clive old bean, name one person who has argued that the climate doesn’t change.

    One can never win an argument against a climate science denier …

    That’s because Professor (public intellectual and PhD) you never use logic in your arguments, just the full panoply of logical fallacies.


    Report this

    80

    • #
      bobl

      Perhaps one can’t win arguments against evil deniers because the evil deniers own the facts and the ethical and goodness personified warmists who want grannies and babies to freeze, poor people to starve, and birds chopped up only have empty rhetoric. Yep seems pretty hard win an argument given that.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Manfred

      It does beg the question of such ‘winning’ fixated folk – ask them what particular array of observations would (rhetorically and potentially of course – sarc/) falsify their position?


      Report this

      00

    • #

      I can and have argued that climate doesn’t change.

      In any meaningful human lifetimes, climate (in the true sense of the term as we’ve known it for centuries) hasn’t changed.

      The deserts of this world have been deserts for thousands of years.
      The alpine climates have been alpine climates for thousands of years.
      The polar climates have been polar climates for thousands of years.
      The tropical climates have been tropical climates for thousands of years.
      The temperate climates have been temperate climates for thousands of years.

      I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that a particular climate as we’ve known it has changed to some other climate during a meaningful human lifetime (say 5 generations).

      The Sahara region apparently used to be green and full of life some 5000 years ago. That is a period much longer than ‘a meaningful human lifetime’.

      I don’t expect ANY of the globes present climates will change until we reach the next ice age. BUT PLEASE DON’T TAX ME NOW. Wait for a few generations.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Jon

        “I don’t expect ANY of the globes present climates will change until we reach the next ice age. BUT PLEASE DON’T TAX ME NOW. Wait for a few generations.”

        We have been killing lots and lots of people since we started farming and moved into cities some more than 8000 years ago?
        Why?
        Because as nomads we had great mobility and could simply move with the food(climate). That is not so easy with farms or Cities. So we are vulnerable to climate change, just look what happened with the old civilizations/cultures all over Earth the last 8000 years.
        So all the way up to the LIA we have been killing people the priests blamed(did not like) to please the Gods so the bad weather should go away. We have had religion since many thousands year ago. The enlightenment and science ended that domination. But guess what, instead we got ideology like socialism and communism based on Karl Marx. And the hard core of these believers look very much like hard core religion? They try to get control over others with just an idea? Is that what it’s all about?


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Neville

    I just received an email from Leon Ashby gushing about his chances in SA senate election and the dollars raised for his senate bid.
    I advised him that I wanted nothing more to do with them and would he please take me off their email list.
    See above 22 for my reasons for doing this.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    crakar24

    OT,

    Over the past 7? years i have paid good money to shield my children from government indoctrination and up until now this plan has been successful, expensive but successful until now.

    Here is the link provided by the school to my year 9 daughter to learn about sustainable living or some crap.

    http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/basics/index.html

    Why do you think this is indictrination you filthy denier? I here you ask, well its quite simple really the school ask the students to answer some questions and one questions states.

    What is the largest ghg? The above website does not mention H2O so in order to get the question right the student must answer CO2 however this is the wrong answer. If the student answers the question correctly by saying water vapor the question will be marked as incorrect.

    Is there a more glaring example of indictrination?


    Report this

    102

    • #
      bobl

      I have found private school science departments receptive to criticism in this space. Talk to the department head, and insist you children get a balanced view of the hypothesis, including the counter arguments. You must have them face facts about GHGs IE that water is the main GHG by an order of magnitude


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Manfred

      crakar24, bolding going forward I ventured to the site to which you provided a link, run by the US EPA.
      No surprises.
      One encounters the frank, unrelenting white noise of mind rinsing. It serves well to provide the incontrivertible evidence that we are in the throes of a full scale ideological war.


      Report this

      81

      • #
        crakar24

        This is what i have sent the head of science

        To

        Mr XXX

        Subject specialist-science

        I am writing to you as I wish to express my concerns about a subject being taught to my daughter XXX. The subject in question is about climate change and is being taught either as a science or sustainable futures subject (maybe you could clarify this for me). In any event I feel this subject falls under the category of science hence my letter to you.

        At the most basic level I have no objections to my daughter being taught the fundamental laws of physics or in this case atmospheric physics or even the laws of thermodynamics and then have her apply this new found knowledge to theory of anthropogenic global warming were she can then test said theory . From this [xxx]{you missed one Crakar. mod oggi} can form her own opinion and either reject or accept the theory.

        However I will object to her being indoctrinated to accept such a theory based on the flawed and misleading science presented by the EPA website provided to her by the school.

        The trigger for writing this letter was when XXX asked what is the most important/dominant green house gas (GHG)? This was a question asked by the school project XXX was required to complete.

        I responded to XXX’s question by stating water vapour is by far the most important GHG, however XXX stated that according to the EPA website it is CO2, in fact the EPA website goes to great lengths in not including water vapour. Therefore if XXX answered the question correctly her answer would be marked incorrect, if XXX answered the question incorrectly her answer would be marked correct. I do not see how this subject or at least the way it is being taught can be considered as furthering XXX’s education.

        In my mind the purpose of education is to enlighten the student with knowledge, knowledge that will allow them seek their own truths not to tell them what the truth is.

        There are many other aspects to this website that fail to meet the criteria of science however I will take up no more of your time discussing this issue. I do request that XXX be given the opportunity to answer the questions asked by using a balance of information from more reputable websites than the one given by the school and if so be marked in accordance with current scientific empirical evidence rather than based on the skewed opinions of the EPA.

        See attached graph “IR_spectrum” in this email to establish that water vapour is in fact the most important/dominant GHG.

        Regards

        PS, Oh did i mention this topic is being taught by the resident priest, rather ironic and completely apt when you think about it.


        Report this

        244

        • #
          crakar24

          I have decided that everytime my red thumb stalker gives me one i will call them a gutless prick.

          So here we go

          GUTLESS PRICK


          Report this

          124

        • #
          crakar24

          Well i be a monkees uncle i got a response, i will let you guys be the judge as to whether i had a win or was feed a bit of bullshit to shut me up.

          Hello Crakar,

          Thank you for your interest and concern in our curriculum at XXXX. I have spoken to Bill’s Science teacher, looked over the task and the associated website. Our mode of practice would suggest that students be free to use any and all reputable sources of information (and are encouraged to do so). The task in question will be amended to reinforce this and remove the inference that they should use only the stated website.

          As to the site in question, I cannot account for their lack of acknowledgement of water vapour as a GHG. Being a US government agency, I assume the EPA would provide reliable information, though this seems a curious omission. The only reason I might suggest for this is that they are focussing on gases over which human activity has significant influence.

          Please assure Bill that his work will be assessed on its scientific merits and not adherence to any particular source or document. If he uses extraneous sources in completing his work this will be lauded and not penalised.

          I hope this sufficiently addresses your inquiry. Please continue this correspondence until it is resolved.

          I have CC’ed Mr X, Director of Teaching & Learning (Science) for my own accountability.

          XXX
          Science Curriculum Leader

          Mathematics/Science Teacher

          (insert school here name here)


          Report this

          92

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Being a US government agency, I assume the EPA would provide reliable information

            ROFLcopter.
            Thanks for that, unnamed clueless underpaid overworked Leftist well-meaning Science Teacher, it was the best laugh I’ve had all day.


            Report this

            41

          • #
            bobl

            No, this is a clear win. The head acknowledges that you are correct on all counts. I did the same with my sons school with similar results – however since the national curriculum has this pseudo-science taught as fact it will be difficult for your daughter to avoid indoctrination. The school is now debating internally how to provide balance on the topic. I suggest you assist the school with countering the clear indoctrination being imposed on schools through the national curriculum by encouraging a debate on how to keep balance in climate change science teaching. It can be done, the curriculum only insists the warmist viewpoint be put, it does not preclude the null hypothesis or other possibilities (eg say the Cloud experiment) being discussed as well.

            One of the biggest problems is that teachers are generally a socialistic, highly unionised workforce in Australia and the union even has an official position on climate change. It is hard to get some teachers to acknowledge the null hypothesis and principles of falsification when it comes to climate change – they simply don’t know enough about it.

            Having said that, more than 50% of people are sceptical of climate change action, and there is a pretty good chance that your school staff has one or two of them, enough to encourage an internal debate.


            Report this

            30

        • #
          Maverick

          Very ironical.

          Our taxpayers give us this day our daily bread,and forgive us our debts,as we also have forgiven our debt to our largely free university education, and lead us not into skeptic temptation but deliver us from evil.

          I like it. :-) Sent you an email. – Jo


          Report this

          20

      • #
        Manfred

        Whoever thumbed down my post, why not post your reason?????


        Report this

        41

        • #
          Heywood the Novarian

          Could be Michael the Activist….

          His posting rights are currently revoked.


          Report this

          21

          • #
            Manfred

            For what it’s worth I think calling the UN Climate Scam for what it is, an ideological war, clarifies the positions and the arguemet in crystalline terms.

            The thumb down crowd loathe being identified for exactly who they are, because they know they will ALWAYS lose the debate that contests personal liberty, pursuit of truth, knowledge and happiness, prosperity and freedom against tax motivated, governmental interventionism (aka. The Ministry of We Know Best).


            Report this

            30

  • #
    MemoryVault

    I can’t believe it.

    An article about a hopelessly ideologically biased taxpayer-funded university professor using a hopelessly ideologically biased taxpayer-funded ABC to push unsubstantiated, demonstrably untrue, green propaganda. 49 comments thus far, the bulk of them calling on the (next) government to “do something” about this outrageous situation.

    All this within 24 hours of the PM-elect (Tony Abbott) appearing on the Andrew Bolt Show and specifically precluding any such action, and in fact, declaring his complete satisfaction with the ABC just as it is.

    One can only wonder what it is going to take for the cold, hard light of reality to break through the fog of wishful thinking that currently pervades the “conservative” element of our society.

    We quite rightly accuse our trolls of living in air-tight thought bubbles hermetically sealed off from the real world. Sooner or later people are going to have to wake up to the fact that currently, things are not all that much different on our side of the fence.


    Report this

    80

    • #
      AndyG55

      MV, I am beginning to see your point.

      The Libs are just Labor-lite, and are not providing any real alternative.

      While they will most probably win this election, if they don’t wake up to what they need to be doing, it is highly probable that Labor will be back in in 2016.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      bobl

      Very good comment MV, however the political reality (and you and I know it) is that Abbott needs to appeal to all voters even the 50% that lean left, as I do. Since labor abandoned the centre the Libs have scooped it up ( this is why Labor is in existence threatening land ), what it does mean though is that the Libs now have major constituencies that actually believe this tripe, and thus will need to back away from the ideological edge very slowly so as not to alarm the natives.

      Despite being a bit left leaning, there is still no way in hell you could get me to vote for this clearly incompetent and allegedly corrupt (Thompson, Gillard, Obeid, Williamson) party who blatantly lies to me “There will be no carbon tax…”. Fact is the Libs represent the Centre and moderate left much better than Labor does right now, labor lite …. just maybe.

      Still, getting back to the point, provided Abbott spends his money on food and oxygen replenishing technology ( Trees and Veges) to provide abatement I’m ok with it.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Michael P

        I’m not impressed with the Coalition’s scheme either MV. I’d say they’ll have trouble getting through the Senate,depending on how the Election goes,as Nick Xenophon and John Madigan to name two,have said they will not support it in it’s current form. But I’d rather them over Labor any day. The lies are becoming more blatant day by day from them,and I’d like a government that is competent and actually tells the truth for once.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          Heywood

          At least the Coalition will waste less money in futile attempts to change the weather.


          Report this

          60

        • #
          MemoryVault

          Michael and Bobl,

          If somebody slashes both my wrists I will bleed to death. If someone slashes just one of my wrists,I will still bleed to death, it will just take more time, and I will suffer for longer. You are both holding up as a virtue the very clearly stated intention of the Coalition to slash just one of my wrists, thereby prolonging my pain.

          For those who failed to notice, something extraordinary happened in Australian Politics earlier this year. In the four weeks leading up to the May Budget, Treasury amended their Budget Deficit estimate upwards, no less than six times. In the ten weeks between the Budget release and the government Economic Statement release, the Deficit Estimate was further adjusted upwards by around another $20 billion. And even that estimate was based on what even ardent Labor supporters have described as “very rubbery” Treasury estimates.

          Stripped of all rhetoric, what does this actually tell us? It tells us in no uncertain terms that the Treasury has now become as politicised as the CSIRO and the BoM, and is now as incapable of producing anything vaguely like meaningful figures to reflect the state of the economy, as the other two are of telling us anything meaningful about climate.

          .
          Faced with an impending election, the only realistic thing an intelligent Opposition could have done when the Economic Statement was released, was to say “Sorry folks, all bets are off. We are obviously heading down shit creek, but Treasury figures are now so bad we simply cannot make any election promises, except, when elected, we’ll do our best to clean the mess up, and start undoing the damage”.

          Could Abbott have won with such a strategy? Who knows? I believe he could have – most Aussies realise something is very wrong. Others here will say no, such a strategy couldn’t win.

          So, what would have been the outcome if Abbott had fought an honest campaign, based on reality, and lost?

          Rudd would be elected with a dysfunctional government. Nobody in his own party wants to work with him. The Gillard backers would do to him exactly what he did to her. The Labor Government and the Labor Party would continue their spectacular job of self-destruction, and the only thing the Coalition would have to promise in the following election was to form a functional government.

          Such a Coalition government would basically have a Mandate To Do Anything, and almost certainly would have a majority in the Senate as well as the House of Reps.

          Instead, what are we going to get? A Coalition government with a mandate to carry on pretty much exactly from where the previous bunch of idiots left off. Climate Change, Gonski, the NDIS, the NBN, the ABC, the universities and education systems, it is all going to remain pretty much the same, with the PPL thrown in on top for good measure.

          Plus, as an added bonus, almost certainly a hostile Senate dominated by the Greens to thwart any real reform that might slip past the socialists apparently now running the Liberal Party.

          .
          The ultimate outcome? Almost certainly a swing back to Labor in either 2016, or 2019, so we can go back to bleeding from both wrists, instead of just one.


          Report this

          80

          • #
            MemoryVault

            .
            Thank you Mr Abbott for a piece of impeccable timing to demonstrate my point.

            Coalition announces plan to give welfare claimants up to $15,500 for finding a job


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Michael P

            MV. I doubt very much that the Senate will be hostile as the coalition have a option of a DD election,if they are too hostile. Labor know this very well,and as such,are very unlikely to back the Greens. Same goes for any independents,unless the hostility is justified. In some instances it may well be that. But as I see it,Labor is slashing both our wrists,and have us hung upside down as well,to insure that the blood flows faster.


            Report this

            20

            • #
              MemoryVault

              Michael P (the sensible Michael, not the other one),

              A Double Dissolution is very much a dual-edged sword, one not to be wielded without caution.

              Yes, given what has transpired, Abbott could successfully pull it off with the Carbon Tax, and also probably the “Turn Back The Boats” laws. The same cannot be said for the NBN, which has heavy backing in some influential circles. Ditto for his Paid Parental Leave scheme, which has a lot of opposition, especially amongst conservative voters.

              Below those heavyweights is a whole raft of proposed legislation which Labor and the Greens can block for various reasons, even though they were the instigators in the first place. For instance, anything proposed by the Coalition with regards to Gonski or the NDIS can be opposed in the Senate on the grounds of being “watered down”, and/or “not going far enough”. The latest effort of $15,000.00 for the unemployed who get a job is another example.

              In each above case, and many more, pushing the issue to a DD would mean trying to explain to conservative voters why he was doing it in the first place, while trying to explain to swinging voters why he was only adopting half measures – which is how Labor and the Greens would explain their opposition.

              Given that Australians hate voting anyway, calling a DD on those issues could be fraught with danger.


              Report this

              00

          • #
            bobl

            Respectfully I disagree. You can’t tread like this if you are governing for all Australians. Personally though I’d have approached it like this. We will conduct a balanced enquiry into climate change, including sceptics (say Prof Carter and Will Kinimonth) to determine appropriate actions on climate/weather.

            The outcome of this is likely to be actions like flood mitigation, maybe a few dams, storm action plans, cyclone shelters etc, all of which we need as a hedge against the weather anyway.

            It also means that I can use the outcome of the enquiry to justify reducing the commitment from 3.2 Bn to whatever is needed to battle the droughts and flooding rains this land is renowned for.

            This would have been a better evidence and cost/benefit based approach in my opinion.


            Report this

            10

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Michael P, just a quick note on John Madigan, he was present at Lord Monckton’s address in Ballarat this year and gave a speech before Monckton came on, the general theme of it was to try and get people to think outside the major 2 parties as they have had it too good for too long and therefore had become similar in ways.
          He said if people were tired of the same old crap from both sides they only had themselves to blame as when it came to vote they should act on what they truly believe to be the best decision for their country instead of settling for the better of two evils, he had a good point and echoed the discontent of MV.


          Report this

          20

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Don’t forget that the ABC gets a lot of viewer/listeners out in the country. There is a high proportion of National Party voters who listen to the ABC because that is mostly what they get.

        Besides, I think Abbott has bigger problems to deal with than the ABC. After all they represent less than 0.3% of expenditure.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      But its the same with the CFMEU and ALP advertising right now.

      ALP advertising says “Abbott will cost 12,000 jobs” but they cant substantiate that figure.

      CFMEU says “Abbott will prefer foreign workers over Aussies” when he has spent the last 6 months arguing against the laxity in the 457 visa system. Its mind boggling misrepresentation and it basically treats the public like idiots because what they are basically saying is “we dont think you will be able to discern the truth”


      Report this

      30

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Isn’t 12,000 approx the number of staff at the federal level in the Health & Education departments?

        Ahhh – one can dream (of state rights…).


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      MV,

      I think the palpable disconnect between the politicians and the rest of the population is due to the fact that Canberra, like Washington, is primarily a Government town. Everybody is breathing the same air.

      It is also starting to become noticeable in Wellington, as the ratio of public servants to productive citizens increases, as industry moves away, to be closer to the major shipping ports in the north of the country.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    bobl

    Jo, sent you an email about this, reasons to not support “climate action” include a number of economic arguments, so it’s entirely plausible that one would agree with all the warmist views, but as an economic pragmitist still believe it’s impossibly expensive to hold back the tide and that actual cash aught to be spent on something vastly more productive


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I wonder if it possible for Clive to be made aware of the opinions of him to be found on this web page.

    I wonder if Clive could fathom the abuse he would be subjected to if he attempted to justify himself.


    Report this

    32

  • #

    In my opinion “concerned” pundits like Clive would be much happier if deniers and people he identifies as selfish and shortsighted didn’t have a vote. If only a strongman would arise who could put down all the deniers, and force through vital changes to save the planet!

    Haven’t we heard this kind of disregard for democracy before?


    Report this

    20

  • #
    LevelGaze

    I despise Hamilton.

    He has quite a few genuine qualifications to his name, but the one that marks him out as the complete pseud he is (and the one one that curiously is always pushed to prominence) is that “FRSA”.

    Now, if you want to nominate yourself to the Royal Society of Arts, and follow it up with a sizeable and recurring cheque, you too can append that pretentious title to your own moniker. Just like Clive. That’s right, anyone can buy an FRSA.

    Writing in Quadrant, Tony Thomas gives an amusing account of his own application (under the code name Kim Jong-un). It’s a hoot, and you’ll never take Clive Hamilton seriously again.

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/07/how-to-impress-like-clive-hamilton


    Report this

    80

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      With some people I am tempted to examine their PhD thesis carefully and find certain portions of it unattributed to the original author.

      I have found that people like Clive that are the most likely to have committed academic fraud. Exposure of it would very much temper Clive’s arrogance.
      [Careful with the accusations please. mod oggi]


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Manfred

      Thanks for the Quadrant link LG. That’s an absolute classic.
      Now here’s another one. Some of you may have seen it. It brought tears to my eyes – Adolf Hitler: Jones told me the science is settled!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    gbees

    Clive is one of those people in a position of influence seeking to push his own agenda on the majority. Like all of the Greens and other politicans they do not care what mainstream Australia wants, they only want what they want.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    Hamilton is just a public face…

    much better to be among the “insiders”…

    27 Aug: Bloomberg: Jim Snyder: Watchdog Faults Hiring at Energy Department Loan Office
    A senior official in the U.S. Energy Department’s loan office hired a friend for one position and forwarded the names and resumes of 10 people to a contractor, which may have influenced its hiring practices, a report from the department’s inspector general said today.
    The contractor, which, like the official, wasn’t named in the report, hired all 10 of the people, the report said…
    The loan programs office manages a portfolio of billions of dollars in outstanding loans to clean-energy companies and auto manufacturers, part of an effort by the administration to promote technologies that release less carbon dioxide emissions in response to climate change…
    The office gave a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra LLC, the solar panel maker that went bankrupt two years later. The office says the failure rate has been less than originally estimated by the law that set up the office…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-26/watchdog-faults-hiring-at-energy-department-loan-office.html


    Report this

    10

  • #
    janama

    The other day I was confronted on facebook by a young lady who asked how I could possibly be a climate sceptic when 97.4% of scientists show a consensus that climate change is happening and we are the cause. She later admitted she was starting a PhD in psychology on the mind of a climate change denier! I told her I was willing to be a part of her research and I’m sure I could find her another hundred or so if she was interested.
    Didn’t hear from her again.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Carbon500

      Janama (posting 35)It sounds as if your young lady needs to start doing some reading about the background to the whole CO2/climate change saga before going any further.
      How can it be that her departmental professor has allowed her to proceed? I am truly astonished.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    pat

    Aus. carbon market worth A$6.6 bln in first year: report
    BEIJING, Aug 26 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Australia’s carbon market was worth A$6.58 billion ($5.94 bln) in its first year of operation, think-tank the Carbon Market Institute said Monday…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2535755?&ref=searchlist

    no political party is dismantling the CAGW ARCHITECTURE:

    Carbon Market Institute – Board of Directors (includes)
    Leslie Hosking
    Chairman
    …Formerly Managing Director of the National Electricity Market Management Company (NEMMCO), Les is a board member of AGL, Adelaide Brighton Ltd, Innovation Australia and the Australian Energy Market Operator…
    Gwen Andrews
    Vice President, Alstom
    …A high ranking bureaucrat in the Australian Government, Gwen was the first Chief Executive of the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1998 to 2002. Gwen is a member of the Energy Reference Group for the Grattan Institute…
    Brendan Bateman
    Partner, Clayton Utz
    …Brendan is co-leader of the Clayton Utz Climate Change and Sustainability group, advising on reporting obligations under the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme and the Building Energy Efficiency Reporting Scheme, trading in carbon and other green rights through various sequestration projects including reforestation and soil carbon projects, design of carbon capture and injection legislation, environmental upgrade and energy performance agreements for commercial buildings, and proposals to introduce a price for carbon in the Australian economy such as through an emissions trading scheme, including permit liability, and EITE status and qualification…
    http://www.carbonmarketinstitute.org/about/board


    Report this

    00

  • #
    James (Aus.)

    Just voted by postal vote and made sure the Greens candidate was preferenced last, below the Labor drongo.
    Making a little trip to see how the Danish Dep’t of Energy now compensates neighbours of industrial wind turbines.
    This country will see litigation on an unprecedented scale before too long; the anti-social parasites who leased land to the companies are not going to be protected by those companies. Should be very interesting.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      As I understand it, the compensation has to be paid by the wind turbine owner but only if the complaint involves a loss of more than 1% in value. This has extended to the owners of existing turbines claiming loss of income because new installations are reducing the wind strength they used to get. The well known ‘wind shadow’ effect which can extend out to 15 times the blade diameter. (Google Horns Rev 1 images for example.)

      The difficulty is in proving such loss, especially in the face of the repeated claim that wind farms don’t affect property prices. I note one of these ‘proofs’ involved a wind farm no nearer than 8 kilometres and invisible to the home owners, but both sides are guilty of exaggeration.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    27 Aug: Bloomberg: Jim Efstathiou Jr: Obama Climate Plan No War on Coal Says Energy Secretary
    This year, coal use and carbon emissions are up — and forecast to grow in the years ahead, jeopardizing Obama’s 2009 pledge to cut greenhouse gases 17 percent by 2020.
    The U.S. had been on a path to reaching Obama’s goal, with emissions last year down more than 12 percent from the peak in 2007, the steepest drop since the oil crisis of the late 1970s…
    The share of coal-fired electricity fell to 35 percent of total generation last year, from 49 percent in 2007, while the share of natural-gas generation hit 30 percent…
    ***Through June, coal’s share of energy production is up to 39 percent, and natural gas is down to 26 percent as its price has risen, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Emissions are now forecast to grow by 2.5 percent this year, and continue on a course of steady growth through 2040.
    That projection has environmentalists worried…
    “I am not here to debate what’s not debatable,” Moniz said referring to the scientific consensus around climate change. “We will focus on doing all that we can with current administrative authorities.” …
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-26/obama-climate-plan-no-war-on-coal-says-energy-secretary.html

    two months ago:

    26 June: Wall St Journal: Kris Maher: Big Coal to Fight Obama Plan
    While final climate-plan details are unknown, one thing is clear: The domestic market for coal that is used to produce electricity will shrink as a result of the new rules and other market forces, most notably a surge in U.S. production of low-priced and cleaner-burning natural gas…
    “The U.S. market for coal is going to be smaller going forward. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out,” said Mr. Crutchfield…
    EPA rules to lower other pollutants have already led to the retirement of coal-fired power plants and lower coal demand, prompting greater focus on exports.
    Last year, U.S. utilities burned 825 million tons of coal, down from 1.045 billion tons in 2007. Meanwhile, coal companies exported 126 million tons last year, up from 59 million tons in 2007.
    At the same time, China’s coal consumption soared to 4.33 billion tons last year, up from 2.97 billion tons in 2007. Global demand for coal is currently about eight billion tons a year. Officials in India, which uses coal to produce more than half its electricity, recently said they intend to boost coal imports to avoid power outages that have hit the country…
    “The world will continue to consume fossil fuels at an increasing rate in the coming decades regardless of potential unilateral action by the United States,” Brett Harvey, chief executive of Pittsburgh-based Consol Energy Inc., which produces both coal and natural gas, said in an emailed statement. He said he doesn’t think Mr. Obama’s climate proposal aligns with “energy realities.”…
    In the U.S., experts say it would take decades to develop enough capacity from other fuel sources to supplant coal. Last year, cheap natural gas pushed electricity generation from coal down to 37%, but coal has rebounded to about 40% this year as natural-gas prices have increased…
    Coal companies are expected to continue shutting higher-cost mines, bringing more economic pain to states like West Virginia and Kentucky. In the first quarter of this year there were 900 active coal mines, down 17% from a year earlier. The top 100 producing mines account for 80% of the U.S. coal supply…
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323689204578569940685984374.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Here we go,

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/science/earth/extremely-likely-that-human-activity-is-driving-climate-change-panel-finds.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&

    Loys of gobbledegook but the only bit you need to read is here

    The scientists, whose findings are reported in a draft summary of the next big United Nations climate report, largely dismiss a recent slowdown in the pace of warming, which is often cited by climate change doubters, attributing it most likely to short-term factors.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    crakar24

    Loys? My God i need a new hobby.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    BeCol

    Hi Jo, luv your work and enjoy your site.
    I went over to the ABC site and did the Compass thing – got 1/4 way through and realised that the questions were biased to hell and no way to express my real opinion. But that is true in general, we seem to be just a item in the great unwashed with little or no options for our voice be heard.
    Most here are posting terribly bleak forecasts for our next government and I agree.
    I have been watching the debate on the CAGW hypothesises and how Australian academics, politics and media have stifled the science and warped the debate. Too many of our eminent Scientists have been hog tied for voicing their right to question.
    Tim Flimflam, Lewdowsky, Cook the books, Clive Havenoethics above and the rest have far too much cult following.
    Is there any way we can get the ABC to have a fair and open debate about Climate. (sorry, a bit early for Xmas, :-( )
    Does anyone openly say how much damage the Greens have done?? [Snip]
    They will continue to do to our country what they are doing to our kids teeth = take fluoride out of the water = kids teeth ROT = put dental on Medicare simple! [snip]
    And don’t start me on their Carbon AX job on Dillard (I only wished she had the balls to gut them for it before she got on her broom).
    I hope they are wiped of the political map in this election (YEAH, I KNOW, a bit early for Xmas, :-( )
    Why can not the Climate Sceptics Party send their preferences to the Democrats or anyone except labour greens or lib/nats it must increase their vote!!
    How can we make our single vote count more?? This election is the first time I (and also my sister!) have ever talked politics to my kids, they were almost as surprised as me!! but they seem not to see the full dire situation even with our comments to look at the big pictures (maybe that’s the left for the old and mangy like me:-( )
    Jo, keep up the great work.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      Dillard (I only wished she had the balls to gut them for it before she got on her broom).

      Don’t you think she already has BeCol ?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      janama

      They will continue to do to our country what they are doing to our kids teeth = take fluoride out of the water = kids teeth ROT = put dental on Medicare simple!

      Israel Bans Flouride


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Mark D.

        Since fluoride is now available in most toothpaste why does it need to be in drinking water?


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Brian G Valentine

          Because it is far more effective taken internally, especially for developing teeth. Children getting adequate fluoride will not have cavities, period.

          Topical fluoride is now sodium fluoride, it used to be stannous fluoride, which is much better because it is more soluble (it was removed from proprietary preparations because ingesting too much of it can be harmful).

          Note that tooth enamel is the mineral calcium hydroxy apatite, flouride treatment replaces hydroxyl ions making the enamel less soluble, has nothing to do really with enamel hardness.

          Banning flouride or not putting it in drinking water is akin to refusing vaccinations. It is insanity


          Report this

          20

          • #
            Mark D.

            “Far more effective”

            What evidence do you have that fluoride toothpaste isn’t effective enough?

            “It is insanity”

            As someone that has (apparently) survived a cancer that some suggest MAY have a connection to fluoride, I disagree. It is a subject that of course is way off topic for this thread.

            Similar to climastrology, whereby certain scientists without adequate scientific support, want widespread forced compliance from the masses because of an assumption that the alternative is very unhealthy.

            Sounds familiar?


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Brian G Valentine

              I’m sorry about any illness you may have had.

              With fluoride relation to cavities, you have a known mechanism and a known result.

              This isn’t “climo-astrology” with a made-up mechanism that isn’t appropriate and results that are anything the observer wants them to be.


              Report this

              10

              • #
                Mark D.

                With fluoride relation to cavities, you have a known mechanism and a known result.

                All right Brian, but you have only half the equation. It is the unknowns that still need to be known. Believe me, I know some of the pitfalls of epidemiology. But with fluoride there is more to be done, I do not think it is insane and it deserves more study. Oddly, I’m tempted mention that you must believe in a vast conspiracy of dentists. :) I know you aren’t that type but there are similarities with the arguers of warmism and the arguers of vaccines, arguers of fluoride, arguers of 911 etc. On the other hand, I’m not wailing that we need to shut down the International Fluoride Consortium either. Fluoridated water is probably safe enough BUT there are studies….. Then you must wonder just how well controlled is the equipment that injects the fluoride, how well trained are the staff that maintain it, how often do they over dose the supply. Safe in theory you know?

                In general I’m against government forcing me to consume something without a choice. Especially when the alternative costs less. It’s a classic example of social engineering.

                Another easier analogy is nitrates in prepared meat. Someone way at the top of government decided that we all significantly risk stomach cancer when eating a salami because it is lower risk than food poisoning (that could be dealt with in other ways). Further made stupid by the same higher-up doesn’t mandate a simple fix of adding ascorbic acid in the same salami recipe.


                Report this

                10

              • #

                Mark D–Where did you find studies that show nitrates are a stomach cancer risk? I ask because most of the studies I have seen are done with the approximate scientific methodology and “could/may” cause language of climate change. What in the studies was more compelling than the climate change studies?

                You don’t have to drink fluoridated water–you can buy your water. I do. You don’t have to eat hot dogs and salami. I limit my intake due to migraines. You don’t have to do any of these things–no one is forcing you.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Mark D.

                Sheri it’s been a while since I looked into this.

                Here is something that I searched today: http://www.dukehealth.org/health_library/health_articles/myth-or-fact-hot-dogs-cause-cancer

                The bad stuff isn’t sodium nitrite (or nitrate) but what it turns into when processed by heat or the stomach: nitrosamines http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Nitrosamines.pdf

                Epidemiology is what it is, and I still eat salami and hotdogs. I do, however, try to take vitamin c or drink orange juice with the foods that contain nitrite/nitrate


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Mark D.

                Oh and Sheri, I know I can buy my water without fluoride but as I said that is more expensive. You’re right I don’t ‘need’ hotdogs nor is anyone forcing me to eat them. :)


                Report this

                10

              • #

                Mark D–thanks for the clarification. While you wonder about these things, you still have an open mind.

                I guess when I read about cancer studies, I start seeing the “everything people do causes climate change” rewritten to “everything people eat, live around or inhale causes cancer”. These are some of the “causes” of cancer:Acetaldehyde (from consuming alcoholic beverages), Epstein-Barr virus (infection with), Hepatitis B virus (chronic infection with), Hepatitis C virus (chronic infection with). Leather dust, MOPP and other combined chemotherapy including alkylating agents (also tamoxifen), Neutrons
                Suspected include: Biomass fuel (primarily wood), emissions from household combustion, Shift work that involves circadian disruption

                What I see when I read this is that we really have no idea whatsoever, except in a very few cases, what actually causes cancer. We want to think we do, but we don’t. Same as with climate.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Mark D.

                Yes Sheri, the difference between climate science is that we don’t have a choice about the lifestyle changes. We are forced to pay for our lifestyle and suffer the consequences of High cost energy. There is similarity though in how the science can be used for political advantage and of course financial gain too.

                We do have some knowledge of specific chemical or biologic contact that increases risk for developing cancer, but you are absolutely right, just who gets cancer from such exposure is very hard to predict. Really I suppose it boils down to the odds of any one cell mutating.
                It may be on purpose that Gaians try to paint the earth as a living organism. By doing so they can use the same lack of hard evidence to affect a cure (through law) of anything that ails poor old Gaia and then perhaps we humans are her cancer…….


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Mark D.

                I’m sorry about any illness you may have had.

                Thank you Brian and I am sure you are sincere when you say it.

                I don’t think of it in terms that are past tense. I have It, It is and will always be with me. Whether it causes my demise is not for me (or you or anyone else) to know.


                Report this

                00

              • #

                Just as a note, since I do a blog about Watching the Deniers website, I clicked over there to check out the latest. It seems Gaia is dead as theory according to Toby Tyrell, in a recent book and WtD is letting us know that this is how science works. A theory is disproven and we discard it. I found it fascinating that Gaia was killed with one book, yet AGW survives multiple books and blogs. I guess Gaia became the sacrificial lamb in this.

                (Yes, some did say we humans were cancers on Gaia. No surprise there. It just amazes me how much some people loathe themselves….)


                Report this

                10

          • #

            Actually, I was surprised to find the decrease in cavities, according to the CDC was 20 to 40%. I would have thought it higher.

            I’m not saying to leave it out, just that it does not seem as effective as I thought.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Brian G Valentine

              Children aren’t drinking enough of it. Children can go to the dentist and take fluoride pills or solution, although a lot of parents especially the less well off don’t bother. Cavities would be unknown if children got enough fluoride.


              Report this

              00

              • #

                Children probably don’t drink enough water. However, as an adult that does not drink water much, I can relate. Diet and dental hygiene seem play a part, plus some people are just more prone to cavities and they don’t really know why. I’m sure the fluoride helps, but I can’t see it eliminating cavities. There’s too much evidence that other factors enter into the picture–I guess I hear you saying we would not have to worry about brushing, flossing or diet if we drank enough fluoridated water. That’s not something I can subscribe to. Perhaps I misunderstand your comment.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Brian G Valentine

                Sure brushing and flossing are important, and fluoride won’t prevent gum disease. Adequate fluoride will lower the solubility of tooth enamel by a factor of 5 anyway, very important to prevent decay, especially in an acid environment (coming from microbial degradation of sugar in the mouth).

                I’ve seen the results. Kids with adequate fluoride treatment in their formative years, ages 3-10, don’t have cavities, despite variable oral hygiene. They certainly may have other teeth and gum problems.

                Too much fluoride isn’t good either. Some kids drink well water with high fluoride, it can darken the enamel, and probably embrittle the enamel.

                I wish I had it in our water when I was a child. That was back in the 1950′s, people rejected water fluoridation, thinking it was some sort of Communist plot


                Report this

                00

              • #

                I did have fluoride and I have lousy teeth (what’s left of them…). When I was young, I did drink water. It may have helped some and my siblings did not have the same problems I have. It’s complicated. It took me a long time to get my dentist to understand that my dental hygiene was good and I had done nothing to “merit” these dental problems, so I guess the idea that fluoride is a panacea is not really sticking with me.

                Also, dentists can now seal teeth in children to reduce cavities (my niece had this done).
                One of my other nieces has holes in her teeth that my sibling says is due to too much fluoride.


                Report this

                00

  • #
    BeCol

    I was just over at WUWT the advert on the top of the page was for a holiday in Tasmania – that is greenly appropriate :-)


    Report this

    20

  • #
    crakar24

    After reading Jo’s preamble (yes i know i should do it first not last) i think i now understand people like Clive when he says this

    Further confirmation of the science will certainly not persuade any climate science deniers. They are beyond persuasion, because the argument is only superficially about the science. It’s really about culture and ideology.

    I read somewhere that only smart people have the ability to be a denier and i have come to the realisation that to people like Clive the science of AGW is this:

    Carbon is a green house gas and heats the air, obviously if you add more carbon you heat more air, ergo the only way to fix this problem is to stop/remove carbon from the air.

    Thats it, thats the science in Clives eyes, no more no less, through in a smattering of religious fervour and you have an idealogical zealot. So naturally you can understand that from his point of view if someone denies this based on things that he does not comprehend he will think you are denying the science.

    There is hope for people like clive we just have to cut them lose, leave them behind, i know that sounds cruel but i think its our only option.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    crakar24

    Not again

    There is hope for people like clive we just have to cut them lose, leave them behind, i know that sounds cruel but i think its our only option.

    Should read

    There is NO hope for people like clive we just have to cut them lose, leave them behind, i know that sounds cruel but i think its our only option.

    Sorry for my sloppy work, i will try harder tomorrow.


    Report this

    41

  • #
    Rich

    This “the science” that he keeps on about. Is it the same “the science” as this: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
    “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    MemoryVault

    Perhaps slightly O/T,

    But I just came across this video via WUWT.

    I think it very accurately portrays the mindset of the Clive Hamiltons and all the other uneducated, pig-ignorant, superstitious, murderous little control freak thugs out there, hell-bent on imposing their will over all the rest of us, “for our own good”.

    Dr Baliunas (astrophysicist) discussing the treatment of “witches” during the LIA. Very enlightening info regarding TRUE “extreme weather” events. Well worth the seven minutes to watch.

    Original WUWT article here.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Tim

    Here’s a few more “lepers of our community’:

    http://www.petitionproject.org/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wayne, s. Job

    These clowns in university and the idiots setting the agenda for the education of our children are the greatest threat to our continued freedoms that has ever been before.

    We have fought world wars and lost the youths of our nation to protect our freedoms and we have let cancerous fools take over our educations systems and much of our media.

    Here you are pointing out but one, of thousands of useful idiots that are indoctrinating our children and polluting the minds of those less capable of logical thought.

    During the last big war these idealogical fools did all in their power to sabotage our war effort until a few were shot on the docks in Sydney. They are still the same, they want the same outcome, a cadre ruling over a subdued and diminished people.

    Dumbing down our children with no real history unable to give change at a till without the big brother till to tell them how much.

    Sorry Jo I am just a tad peeved that these idiots have been getting away with bloody murder, I have grand children, my daughter son in law and I have to de-programme them.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Jo writes…

    By this view, the world is going to hell in a handbasket, Australians know it, but are too selfish and stupid to act. So little respect is shown for the unwashed masses views there’s an element of class warfare. Those who drink from Clive’s bowl find reasons to resent most Australians, but gain no understanding. Is this what the ABC is for?

    The ABC is merely reflecting the entrenched views of their sponsors – the Senior Executive Service of the Australian Government.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Clive Hamilton is a failure in ethical theory. A failure as a philosopher more generally. A failure as an epistemologist. Clive Hamilton cannot sing or dance. So what is he good for?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    In his defence he did make a case for keeping our girls away from the frontlines of defence service. I agree with him. I say our girls must be in reserve at least until the continent is invaded. And female warriors so trained are probably excellent in logistics and supply and these other non-frontline positions. So I’m not saying everything Clive says is wrong. Just as I’m not saying a stopped clock is always wrong.


    Report this

    00